Investigating The Effect of Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia's Microcredit Program On Their Clients Quality of Life in Rural Malaysia

www.ccsenet.org/ijef International Journal of Economics and Finance Vol. 4, No.
1; January 2012
Investigating the Effect of Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia’s Microcredit

Program on Their Clients Quality of Life in Rural Malaysia
Abdullah- Al- Mamun
Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, Binary University College, 47100 Puchong, Malaysia
Tel: 60-16-215-7752 E-mail: mamun.freethinker@gmail.com
Joseph Adaikalam
Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, Binary University College, 47100 Puchong, Malaysia
Tel: 60-3-8070-6590 E-mail: joseph@binary.edu.my
Sazali Abdul Wahab

National Defense University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 57000, Malaysia
Tel: 60-3-9051-3060 E-mail: saw@upnm.edu.my
Received: July 8, 2011 Accepted: August 1, 2011 Published: January 1, 2012

doi:10.5539/ijef.v4n1p192 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijef.v4n1p192
This study was conducted under the project titled “Fighting Against Poverty” funded by The Centre for Social
Entrepreneurship, Binary University College
Abstract
The objective of this study is to examine the impact of Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia’s (AIM) microcredit program on
their poor client’s quality of life in rural Malaysia. AIM provides small scale financial services and training to poor
and hardcore poor households in order to improve their socio-economic condition. This study employed a
cross-sectional design with stratified random sampling method to examine whether participation in AIM’s
microfinance programs improves poor rural households quality of life. A quality of life index using eleven selected
indicators was developed. Findings of this study extend the literature by providing empirical evidence that access to
microfinance improved quality of life of the poor rural households in Malaysia. The findings show that respondent’s
participation status is associated with the size and quality of their houses. AIM should therefore focus on increasing
the outreach as well as review and re-organize their programs in order to offer a dynamic and well-diversified
microfinance program to fulfill all financial needs of their poor clients in rural areas.
Keywords: Microfinance, Poverty, Quality of life, Welfare, Malaysia
1. Introduction
The poverty rate in Malaysia has declined dramatically after its independence. While 49.3% of Malaysian
households lived below the poverty line in 1970, the poverty rate has reduced significantly to 16.5% in 1990, and
further declined to 3.6% in 2007 (Midterm Review of 9th Malaysia Plan). The reduction in poverty rate can be
attributed to the rapid economic growth in Malaysia which generated higher-paid employment opportunities and
profitable micro and small-scale businesses opportunities in Malaysia (Economic Report, 2008/09). Moreover, the
government of Malaysia implemented several strategies to increase productivity, diversify sources of income and
improve the quality of life of the poor. These poverty reduction strategies were the integrated and integral part of
Malaysia’s core development plans. The government encourages and works together with private sectors and state
based poverty eradication foundations. The leading organizations working toward socio-economic development of
the poor and hardcore poor households in Malaysia includes (1) Tabung Ekonomi Kumpulan Usahawan National
(National Entrepreneurs Economic Group Fund - TEKUN), (2) Agrobank, (3) Lembaga Kemajuan Ikan Malaysia
(Malaysia Fisheries Development Board - LKIM), (4) Yayasan Basmi Kemiskinan (Poverty Eradication Foundation
–YBK) and (5) Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia.
192 ISSN 1916-971X E-ISSN 1916-9728

www.ccsenet.org/ijef International Journal of Economics and Finance Vol. 4, No. 1; January 2012
However, the client selection process as well as product and services offered by each program are not same.
TEKUN was established in 1998 as a foundation under Ministry of Entrepreneur Development and Cooperatives,
Malaysia, to provide loans only to Bumiputra’s who own and are directly involved in any business not necessarily
from the poor or hardcore poor group. Agrobank provides microcredit to all Malaysian micro-entrepreneurs, which
they labeled as ‘Entrepreneur Capital 1 Malaysia’, and this scheme is not primarily focusing on poor and hardcore
poor households in Malaysia. LKIM was established to offer several small scale credit services to improve the
socio-economic status of the fishing community only and the fishermen does not necessarily have to be poor or
hardcore poor. YBK was launched by the State Government of Selangor and it provides financial services only to
selected participants from the State. The objectives of YBK are to produce entrepreneur and small scale
businessman and to improve the quality of life of hardcore poor households in Selangor, Malaysia.
AIM on the other hand was established in 1987, to provide small scale financial services and training to poor and
hardcore poor only, in order to improve their socio-economic condition. AIM uses a group based Grameen Bank (a
Bangladeshi microfinance organization) model, which has been replicated by many MFO’s all over the world. AIM
selects their clients based on clients’ average monthly household income. Households with average monthly
household income below the poverty line income (PLI has been calculated by the Malaysian government since 1976.
It was estimated based on the necessity of food and other basic needs) would be considered as absolute poor, while
households with average monthly household income below half of the PLI would be categorized as hardcore poor.
AIM only selects those households, whose average monthly household income falls below the PLI, which includes
both poor and hardcore poor households.
AIM provides three economic loans namely I-Mesra loan, I-Srikandi loan and I-Wibawa loan. AIM also provides
I-Penyayang loan or recovery loan. In addition, AIM provides education loan (I-Bistari) and housing/multipurpose
loan known as I-Sejahtera. No legal action would be taken if the borrowers fail to settle their payments. As at
August 2010, AIM has extended their outreach to 87 branches in Malaysia. There are 60497 groups in 6646 centers,
currently serving a total of 254,116 clients achieving a 99.42% repayment rate (AIM, 2010) from all the loans
disbursed. AIM is the only microfinance organization operating at national level and reaching to more than 82% of
the poor and hardcore poor households in Malaysia. In view of its wide coverage, this study therefore selected AIM
in order to measure the impact of microcredit program on the quality of life of poor rural households in Malaysia.
2. Literature Review
Microcredit came into existence nearly two decades ago to fulfill the need for basic financial services of nearly half
of the world’s population (Abed, 2000). Microcredit is established to uplift poor people and bring them out of
poverty by lending small amount of collateral free credit for small scale income generating activities (Rosenberg,
2010). The Asian Development Bank (2009) defines microcredit as the provision of a broad range of financial
services such as loans, deposits, payment services, money transfer, and insurance to poor and hardcore poor
households and their micro-enterprises. Consultative Group to Assist the Poor (CGAP, 2010) defined microcredit as
“a credit methodology that employs effective collateral substitutes to deliver and recover short-term, working capital
loans to micro entrepreneurs.” The Microcredit Summit (2006) adopted the definition of microcredit as “programs to
extend small loans to very poor people for self-employment projects that generate income, allowing them to care for
themselves and their families.” The objective of Microcredit Summit is to ensure that 175 million of the world’s
poorest families, especially the women in those families, receive credit for self-employment and other financial and
business services before the end of 2015 (Microcredit Summit Campaign Report, 2009). As mentioned in
Microcredit Summit Campaign Report (2009), “assuming five persons per family, reaching 175 million of the
world’s poorest families would affect 875 million family members. When 100 million families rise above the US$1
a day threshold, half a billion people will have left extreme poverty”.
Microcredit provides productive capital, which together with social capital and human capital enables the poor and
hardcore poor households to move out of poverty (Otero, 1999; Abed, 2000). There is extensive literature on
microcredit showing that it has a significant impact on poverty reduction around the world. Studies conducted by
Hossain (1988), Mustafa et al. (1996), Khandker and Pitt (1998), Kamal (1999), Latifee (2003), Khandker (2003),
Hussain and Nargis (2008), Hoque (2008), and Rahman, Rafiq and Momen (2009) on several microfinance
organization’s clients in Bangladesh noted that participation in microfinance programs improved poor households
ability to generate income which leads to an improvement in household’s income, net working capital, fixed assets,
increase spending on food, medical facilities and children’s schooling. A study conducted by Khandker and Pitt
(1998) showed indirect improvement of household welfare by increasing market labor supply and children’s
schooling. Findings of Malhota, Schuler and Boender (2002) have shown that after participating in a group based
microcredit program, women become more conscious about their family welfare, which ultimately leads to positive
outcomes in child health and education as well as household wellbeing. Latifee (2003) in his study on Grameen
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 193

Bank’s microcredit clients in Bangladesh mentioned that about 90% of the borrowers reported an improvement in
standard of living. Studies conducted by Sutoro (1990) in Indonesia, Sebstad and Walsh (1991) in Nairobi, Mosley
(1996) in Bolivia, Dunn (2005) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Panda (2009) in India also noted similar positive
impacts of microcredit.
The impact of AIM’s microfinance schemes followed a similar pattern, as it does for others. Study conducted by
Sukor and Gibbons (1990) discovered a significant 55% increase in client’s monthly household income. The Second
Internal Impact Study, (1990) conducted by Research and Development Unit, AIM, showed further overall
improvement among participating households. Around 98% of them experienced an increase in household income
compared to 70% from the first study. The per capita monthly income also increased from RM40 to RM73. The
Third Internal Impact Study (1994) measured the impact on quality of life, by analyzing the ownership and quality
of housing, type and quality of household assets, agricultural land and savings. Findings of this study also noted that
increase in household income enables the participants to improve their housing conditions. Household savings
increased from an average RM33.11 to RM211.25. The increase in household income also facilitated an increase in
expenditure on food, nutrition, education and reinvestment.
Earlier researches used a wide range of indicators to measure the quality of life of the households’ of microfinance
organizations clients. Snodgrass and Sebstad (2002) conducted an impact study in three MFO’s; SEWA Bank in
India; Mibanco in Peru and Zambuko Trust in Zimbabwe. The indicators they used to measure households quality of
life in India include materials used in the Walls, Floor and Roof, number of rooms, number of floors, separate
room for a kitchen, separate household plot, separate house/ room/ building, have electricity, sources of water, light
and cooking fuel. Uotila (2005), in his impact assessment in Rwanda, measured the quality of life of microfinance
clients households based on their sources of drinking water, cooking fuel, toilet facilities and children in school. The
Third Internal Impact Study (1994) measured their client’s household’s quality of life by using the following
indicators, owner occupied house, use of electric household products, ownership of agricultural land, perception of
nutritional quality and voluntary savings. After reviewing the earlier studies, this study selected the following
variables to measure the impact of AIM’s microfinance schemes on poor rural household’s quality of life - size of
the house, number of storey, number of rooms, structural condition, materials used in walls, roof and floor; sources
of drinking water, cooking fuel, toilet facilities and sources of light
3. Research Methodology
3.1 Conceptual Model and Hypothesis
As mentioned by Hulme (1997), “behind all microfinance programs is the assumption that intervention will change
human behaviors and practices in ways that lead to the achievement (or raise the probability of achievement) of
desired outcomes.” The conceptual model of impact chain presents a complex set of links as each ‘effect’ becomes a
‘cause’ in its own right generating further effects. One of the most complex conceptual models for impact
assessment was presented by Chen and Dunn (1996), called the household economic portfolio model (HHEP),
where researchers explained the effect of credit on household resources and household activities only. This study
however only measures one of the implications of Household Economic Portfolio Model; which is hypothesized as
(H1) ‘participation in microcredit program lead to an improvement in households’ quality of life in Rural Malaysia’.
3.2 Research Design
As mentioned by Montgomery and Weiss (2011), impact assessment methodology addressed how participation in
microcredit program affects selected variables with how those same selected variables would have performed in the
absence of microcredit program. The most appropriate method to address the question should be by employing an
experimental design. Since it is just not possible to control all the factors while measuring the impact of microcredit
(Hulme, 2000), therefore, full experimental approach is not feasible to assess the impact of microcredit programs
(see also Khandker and Pitt, 1998; Swain and Varghese, 2009; Montgomery and Weiss, 2011), this study therefore
used a quasi-experimental approach to measure the impact of microcredit. In quasi-experimental approach control
and treatment groups are used to measure the impact of AIM’s microcredit programs. Moreover, in Malaysia, AIM
provides financial services to more than 82 percent of the poor households. The rest of the poor and hardcore poor
households are more likely to receive financial aid from other government and non-government development
agencies or projects. It is also highly likely that these poor households live in remote locations therefore are unable
to form a five member group and participate in weekly center meetings and/or they just do not want to participate in
AIM’s microcredit program. To minimize the difference between the control and the treatment group (participating
more than 12 months), this study therefore selects the control group (participating less than or equal to 12 months)
from AIM’s client base. This study also used before and after method to measure the impact of microcredit on poor
rural household’s quality of life.
194 ISSN 1916-971X E-ISSN 1916-9728

This research employed a cross-sectional design to measure the impact of AIM’s microcredit schemes in Peninsular
Malaysia. This study adopted the group statistics that has been most often used known as ‘average effect of
treatment of treated’, which measures the impact on the outcome of one group compared to others. The average
program impact is estimated by comparing the average outcome of the members of treatment group (old respondents)
with the same average outcome of the members of the control group (new respondents).
3.3 Sample Selection and Data Collection
This research employed a stratified random sampling method and collected data through face-to-face structured
interviews. AIM’s microcredit program currently offers financial services through 87 branches in Malaysia. Among
the 87 branches, 7 branches were randomly selected from five states, where poverty rate is relatively higher
compared to other states. Out of seven branches, two were from Kedah (Cawangan Baling and Cawangan Pendang),
two were from Kelantan (Cawangan Machang and Cawangan Tumpat) and one branch each from Perlis (Cawangan
Perlis), Perak (Cawangan Batang Padang) and Terengganu (Cawangan Besut). A team of nine Research Assistants
together with the Project Manager then visited each of the branches from 18th April, 2011 to 9th May, 2011.
Respondents were randomly selected during the centre meetings. After the data collection team had explained the
purpose of the study a total of 286 respondents agreed to be interviewed and complete data were collected from a
total of 281 poor rural clients, of whom 34 were new clients and 247 were old clients
4. Summary of Findings
4.1 Housing Conditions
Respondents housing conditions were assessed based on the size of the house, number of storey of the house,
number of rooms in the house and structural conditions of the house. The percentage distribution of size of home for
new and old respondents is presented in Table 1. The p-value for Pearson’s Chi-Square tests indicates an association
between respondents participation status with the size of the house they living in (p-value = 0.000 < 0.05). Moreover,
a relatively higher percentage of new respondents reported that they are living in smaller houses compared to the old
respondents. The p-value for Pearson’s Chi-Square tests indicates an association between respondents membership
status (new and old) with the size of the house they live in (p-value = 0.000 < 0.05).
The p-value for the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test is 0.034, which is less than the preferred 5% level of significance,
indicating a significant difference in the mean size of the house; the mean size of the houses of respondents after
participation is significantly bigger than the size of the house before the participation. Moreover, the p-value for the
Mann-Whitney test is 0.010, which is less than the chosen 5% level of significance, indicating a significant
difference in the mean size of the house; the mean size of the houses of old respondents is significantly bigger than
the mean size of houses of new respondents.
On the number of storeys of the houses, only 11 out of 281 respondent, reported that they are currently living in
houses with more than two storeys, which is higher than that recorded before participation. The p-value for
Pearson’s Chi-Square tests indicates an association between respondents participation status – before and after, with
the number of storeys of the house they live in (p-value = 0.000 < 0.05). The p-value for the Wilcoxon Signed
Ranks is 0.020, which is less than the chosen 5% level of significance and this indicates that more respondents are
staying generally in multi-storey houses after participating AIM’s microcredit program.
Table 2 presents the details about the number of rooms and structural condition of the houses of new and old
respondent’s as well as the changes after participation. The p-value for Pearson’s Chi-Square tests indicates that
respondent’s participation status (before and after) is associated with the number of rooms in the house they are
living in. Only 7 out of 281 respondents reported that the number of rooms in their houses increased after
participation. The p-value for the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks is 0.000, which is less than the chosen 5% level of
significance, indicating a significant difference in the mean number of rooms per house respondents are living in
before and after participation.
With regard to the structural condition of the house respondents are living in, only 11 out of 281 respondents
reported that the structural condition of their house is better than before participation. The p-value for Pearson’s
Chi-Square tests indicates that respondent’s participation status (before and after) is associated with the structural
condition of the house they are living in. The p-value for the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks is 0.000, which is less than the
chosen 5% level of significance. On the whole the structural conditions of the house after participation is
significantly better than before participation.
4.2 Housing Materials
To grade the materials used for the walls, floor and roofs of the houses, respondents were asked to answer from
eight options which include the most common housing materials, such as cement/stone, wooden boards, plastics or

cardboard, zinc/tin, bamboo and others. Materials used were then divided into two groups, namely permanent
materials and temporary materials. The types of housing materials used to construct walls, floor and roofs of the
houses, new and old respondents are currently living in as well as before and after participating in AIM’s
microcredit program are presented in Table 3.
More than 80% of the total rural respondents reported that they used temporary material for the walls of their house.
84.3% respondents reported that they used temporary housing materials for the floor of the house and 98.9%
respondents reported that they used temporary housing materials in the roofs of their houses. Out of 281 respondents,
14 households changed housing materials from temporary to permanent for walls of their houses. The p-value for
Pearson’s Chi-Square tests indicates that respondent’s participation status (before and after) is associated with the
materials used to construct walls of their houses. It is noted that the p-value for the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks is less
than the chosen 5% level of significance indicating that the mean value for materials used for walls before and after
participation in AIM’s microcredit program is significantly different
4.3 Other Welfare Indicators
Other household welfare variables include household’s toilet facilities, cooking fuel, sources of light and sources of
drinking water. Findings from this study indicate that in rural Peninsular Malaysia, only 8 out of 281 respondents are
reported to have no access to environmentally safe toilet facilities (Flash / Cement Toilet) and 8 out of 281
respondents reported that they use environmentally more destructive cooking fuel. On sources of drinking water,
total 19 out of 281 rural respondents reported not having access to tap water. The number and percentage of new and
old respondents having access to safe sources of drinking water, cooking fuel and toilet facilities are presented in
Table 4.
Findings of this study indicate that 93.2% households currently have access to safe drinking water, 97.2%
households use environmentally less distractive cooking fuel and 97.2% of respondents used environmentally safe
toilet facilities in rural Peninsular Malaysia. The p-value for Pearson’s Chi-Square tests indicates that respondent’s
participation status (before and after) is associated with the sources of drinking water and sources of cooking fuel.
The p-value for the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks is less than the chosen 5% level of significance indicating that the
sources of drinking water and sources of cooking fuel used by the respondent’s households are significantly better
than before participation
4.4 Testing Research Hypothesis 1
The mean quality of life index score for 281 rural clients before and after participation in AIM’s microcredit
program are presented in Table 5. The mean quality of life score after participation is relatively higher than that
before participation. The standard deviation of quality of life score also decreased after participation. The p-value
for Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test is 0.000, which is less than chosen 5% level of significance, which indicates that the
mean difference in quality of life index score is statistically significant. It is therefore concluded that participation in
AIM’s microcredit program does lead to an improvement in client’s quality of life in rural Peninsular Malaysia.
5. Conclusion and Recommendation
This study assessed the impact of AIM’s microcredit program on the quality of life of poor clients households in
rural Peninsular Malaysia. Since the objective of AIM’s microcredit program is to improve socio-economic
condition of poor households in Malaysia, findings of this study therefore improve AIM’s knowledge and
understanding about the effectiveness of current microcredit program on household’s quality of life.
As per the findings presented above, this study concludes that participation in AIM’s microcredit program leads to
an improvement in poor rural household’s quality of life in Peninsular Malaysia. These findings are consistent with
earlier research findings conducted to measure the impact of AIMs microfinance schemes on their client’s quality of
life as well as studies conducted around the world. These studies include SERU (1990) impact study; the Third
Internal Impact Study (1994); Snodgrass and Sebstad (2002) in India, Peru and Zimbabwe; Uotila (2005) in Rwanda;
and Latifee (2003) in Bangladesh.
The findings of this study have vital implications for academics, AIM, poor rural households, as well as the
development economists and policy makers. For academicians, findings of this study indicate the importance of
measuring impact of microcredit program on quality of life too instead of focusing only on income and asset. For
AIM policy makers, these findings indicate the effectiveness of the program they practised since 1987. For rural
poor households and for the economists and development policy makers, these findings indicate that participation in
AIM’s microcredit program can be a useful mechanism to improve the quality of life of rural poor households in
Peninsular Malaysia.
196 ISSN 1916-971X E-ISSN 1916-9728

AIM therefore has to intensify its efforts in order to increase the number of poor as well as less poor or low income
group by offering them with a well-diversified products and services. It is therefore proposed that AIM should
review current microfinance products and methodology and organize them in a way which can benefit their clients
most.
References
Abed, H. F. (2000). Microfinance NGOs in Bangladesh Growth, Impact and Challenges, Paper presented at the
Asian Regional Conference on The Potential and Limitations of Economic Initiatives in Grassroots Development –
Current Issues and Asian Experiences, 27th - 30th November 2000.
Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia. (2010). Achievement as of 31 August 2010. [online] Available: http://www.aim.gov.my
(09.12.2010)
Asian Development Bank. (2009). Microfinance Development Strategy, [Online] Available:
http://www.adb.org/Documents/Policies/Microfinance/microfinance0100.asp?p=policies (12.01.2009)
Baker, J. and Schuler, N. (2004). Analyzing Urban Poverty: A summery of Methods and Approaches, World Bank
Policy Research Working Paper – 3399. the World Bank.
CGAP. (2006). Good Practice Guidelines for Funders of Microfinance, Available at
http://www.cgap.org/p/site/c/template.rc/1.9.2746/ (11.12. 2007).
CGAP. (2010). what is Microfinance? [Online] Available: http://www.microfinancegateway.
org/p/site/m/template.rc/1.26.9183/#1 [2010, January 16]
Chen, M A., & Dunn, E. (1996). Household Economic Portfolios, Washington DC: Management Systems
International
Datta. (2004). Microfinance in rural Bangladesh: Is it reaching the poorest? Journal of Microfinance, Vol. 6, no-1,
pp 59.
Dunn, E. (2005). Impact of Microfinance on Clients in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Foundation for Sustainable
Development of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska Development and Employment
Foundation.
Gibbons, D. S., & Kasim, S. (1990). Banking on the Rural Poor, Center for Policy Research, University Science
Malaysia, Malaysia
Harris, S. D. (2006). Microcredit Summit Campaign Report -2006, [Online] Available:
www.microcreditsummit.org/pubs/reports/socr/2006/SOCR06.pdf [2008, December 21]
Harris, S. D. (2009). Microcredit Summit Campaign Report -2009, [Online] Available:
http://www.microcreditsummit.org/uploads/socrs/SOCR2009_English.pdf [2010, October 11]
Hashemi, S.M. (1997). Dropouts and Leftouts: The Grameen Targeting of the Extreme Poor, Dhaka: Credit
Development Forum.
Hoque, S. (2008). Does Micro-credit Program in Bangladesh Increase Household’s Ability to Deal with Economic
Hardships? [Online] Munich Repack Personal Archive, Paper No. 6678, Available:
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/6678/ [2008, November, 11]
Hossain, M. (1988). Credit for the Alleviation of Rural Poverty: The Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, Research Report
No. 55, IFPRI, Washington DC.
Hulme, D. (1997). Impact Assessment Methodologies for Microfinance: A Review, Washington DC, CGAP.
Hussain AKM, G., & Nargis N. (2008). A Welfare Economic Analysis of the Impact of Microfinance in Bangladesh,
Department of Economics, University of Dhaka, Nilkhet, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh.
Islam, T. (2007). Microfinance and poverty alleviation. Aldershot, England; Burlington, U.S.A.: Ashgate
Publishing.
Kamal, M.M. (1999). Measuring Transformation: Assessing and Improving the Impact of Microfinance. Impact
Evaluation Mechanism of the Association for Social Advancement (ASA) in Bangladesh
Khandker, S. R. (2003). Microfinance and Poverty: Evidence Using Panel Data from Bangladesh, World Bank
Policy Research Working Paper 2945, Washington D.C.

Khandker, S. R., & Pitt, M. (1998). The Impact of Group-Based Credit Programs on Poor Households in Bangladesh:
Does the Gender of Participants Matter? Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 106, pp: 958-96.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/250037
Latifee, H. I. (2003). Microfinance and Poverty Reduction, International Conference on Poverty Reduction through
Microfinance. Taksim-Istambul, June 09-10, 2003.
Mid Term Review of the 9th Malaysia Plan (2008) Economic Planning Unit, The Government of Malaysia, [Online]
Available: http://www.epu.gov.my (12.10.2008)
Mosley, P. (1996). Metamorphosis from NGO to Commercial Bank: The Case of Bancosol in Bolivia. In Finance
Against Poverty, Volume II: Country Case Studies, pp 1-45
Mustafa, S., Ara, I., Banu, D., Hossain, A., Kabir, A., Mohsin, M., Yusuf, A., & Jahan, S. (1996). Beacon of Hope:
An Impact Assessment of BRAC's Rural Development Programme. Research and Evaluation Department,
Bangladesh Rural Development Committee, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Otero, M. (1999). Bringing Development back into Microfinance. Journal of Microfinance, Vol-1, Issue-1 pp- 8
Panda K. D. (2009). Participation in the Group Based Microfinance and its Impact on Rural Households: A
Quasiexperimental Evidence from an Indian State. Global Journal of Finance and Management, Vol: 1, No: 2, Pp:
171-183
Rahman, H. Z. (1998). Bangladesh: Dynamics of Rural Poverty, Paper presented at International Conference on
Poverty, 9/11 February 1998, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Rahman, S., Rafiq, R. B., & Momen, M. A. (2009). Impact of Microfinance Programs on Higher Income Borrowers:
Evidence from Bangladesh. International Business & Economics Research Journal, Vol-:8, Issue: 2
Research and Development Unit. (1990). Second Impact Study, Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
Research and Development Unit. (1991-1993). Third Impact Study, Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia
Rosenberg, R. (2010). Does Microfinance Really Help the Poor People, CGAP Focus Note [Online] Available:
http://www.cgap.org/gm/document-1.9.41443 /FN59.pdf [2010, November 10]
Salma M. (2004). A Comparative Case Study on Outreach and Impact of Ikhtiar Loan Scheme and Special Program
for Hardcore Poor in Seberang Perai Pulau Pinang. Masters Thesis, University Science Malaysia.
Sebstad, J., & Walsh, M. (1991). Microenterprise Credit and its Effects in Kenya: An Exploratory Study. Report
prepared for USAID AFR/MDI and S&T/WID. Coopers and Lybrand, Washington, D.C.
Snodgrass, D.R., & Sebstad, J. (2002). Client in Context: The Impact of Microfinance in three countries,
Consultative Group to Assist the Poor, Washington DC: Management Systems International
Social Science and Economic Research Unit. (1990). Impact Study, Prime Ministers Department, Malaysia
Sutoro, A. D. (1990). KUPEDES Development Impact Survey: Briefing Booklet, BRI, Planning, Research and
Development Department. Indonesia.
Tenth Malaysia Plan. (2010). Economic Planning Unit, The Government of Malaysia, [Online] Available:
http://www.epu.gov.my (11.11.2010)
Uotila, A. (2005). Livelihood Impact of Microfinance access for the Poor: The Case of Vision FINCA Rwanda.
MPhil Thesis, The University of Guelph, Canada.
198 ISSN 1916-971X E-ISSN 1916-9728

Table 1. Size of the House and Number of Storey

Membership Status Participation Status
Size of the House New Old Before After
Small N 11 19 33 30
% 32.4% 7.7% 11.7% 10.7%
Medium N 18 193 211 211
% 52.9% 78.1% 75.1% 75.1%
Big N 5 35 37 40
% 14.7% 14.2% 13.2% 14.2%
N 34 247 281 281
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100%
Value 19.5568 510.5852
Pearson Chi-Square Test p-value 0.000 < 0.05 0.000 < 0.05
Mean 0.7059 0.7662 0.7536 0.7589
Descriptive Analysis SD 0.1682 0.1160 0.1249 0.1246
Shapiro-Wilk test of Normality p-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Mann-Whitney Test Wilcoxon Signed Ranks
M.Rank 115.47 144.51 Positive Rank: 3
Z -2.582 -2.1213
Testing Mean Difference p-value 0.010 < 0.05 0.034 < 0.05
Number of Storey
One N 28 213 251 241
% 82.4% 86.2% 89.3% 85.8%
Two N 5 33 27 38
% 14.7% 13.4% 9.6% 13.5%
More then Two N 1 1 3 2
% 2.9% 0.4% 1.1% 0.7%
N 34 247 281 281
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100%
Value 2.7937 349.7331
Pearson Chi-Square Test p-value 0.247 > 0.05 0.000 < 0.05
Mean 0.7059 0.7662 0.7536 0.7589
Z -0.6580 -2.3237
Testing Mean Difference p-value 0.511 > 0.05 0.020 < 0.05

Table 2. Number of Rooms and Structural Condition of the House

Membership Status Participation Status
Number of Rooms New Old Before After
One N 4 8 19 12
% 11.8% 3.2% 6.8% 4.3%
Two N 12 75 86 87
% 35.3% 30.4% 30.6% 31.0%
Three N 12 104 110 116
% 35.3% 42.1% 39.1% 41.3%
More than Three N 6 60 66 66
% 17.6% 24.3% 23.5% 23.5%
N 34 247 281 281
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100%
Value 6.2192 697.3008
Mean 0.6471 0.7186 0.6984 0.7100
Descriptive Analysis SD 0.2312 0.6931 002195 0.2079
Z -1.709 -3.3565
Structural Condition of the House
Poor N 1 10 17 11
% 2.9% 4.0% 6.0% 3.9%
Moderate N 27 171 203 198
% 79.4% 9.2% 72.2% 70.5%
Good N 6 66 61 72
% 17.6% 26.7% 21.7% 25.6%
N 34 247 281 281
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100%
Value 1.4935 401.9442
Mean 0.7868 0.8067 0.7891 0.8043
Z -0.9376 -4.1231
200 ISSN 1916-971X E-ISSN 1916-9728

Table 3. Materials Used in the Walls, Floor and Roof

Materials used in Walls of the House Membership Status Participation Status
New Old Before After
Temporary Materials (0) N 25 201 240 226
(Wood/Plastic/Zinc/Bamboo) % 73.5% 81.4% 85.4% 80.4%
Permanent Materials (1) N 9 46 41 55
(Cement/Stone) % 2.5% 18.6% 14.6% 19.6%
Value 1.1690 197.2534
Mean 0.2647 0.1862 0.1459 0.1957
Z -1.0792 -3.7416
Materials used in the floor of the House
(Wood/Plastic/Zinc/Bamboo) % 76.9% 85.4% 84.3% 84.3%
(Cement/Stone) % 23.5% 14.6% 15.7% 15.7%
Value 1.8145
Pearson Chi-Square Test p-value 0.178 > 0.05
Mean 0.2353 0.1457
Descriptive Analysis SD 0.4305 0.3535
Shapiro-Wilk test of Normality 0.000 0.000
Mann-Whitney Test
M.Rank 152.06 139.48
Z -1.345
Testing Mean Difference p-value 0.179 > 0.05
Materials used in the Roof of the House
(Wood/Plastic/Zinc/Bamboo) % 97.1% 99.2 98.9% 98.9%
(Cement/Stone) % 2.9% 0.8% 1.1% 1.1%
N 34 247 281 281
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100%
Value 1.2854
Mean 0.0294 0.0081
Shapiro-Wilk test of Normality p-value 0.000 0.000
Mann-Whitney Test
M.Rank 143.63 140.64
Z -1.1317

Table 4. Sources of Drinking Water, Cooking Fuel and Toilet Facilities

Sources of Drinking Water Membership Status Participation Status
New Old Before After
Unsafe (0) N 2 17 28 28
(River/rain/pond water) % 5.9% 6.9% 9.96% 9.96%
Safe Sources (1) N 32 230 253 253
(Tap/Bottled Water) % 94.1% 93.1% 90.04% 90.04%
N 34 247 281 281
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100%
Value 0.0474 184.1285
Mean 0.9412 0.9312 0.9004 0.9324
Z -0.2173 -3.000
Sources of Cooking Fuel
Environmentally More Distractive Sources N 2 6 14 8
(0) (Wood/Coal/Dung) % 5.9% 2.4% 5.0% 2.8%
Environmentally Less Distractive Sources N 32 241 267 273
(1) (Gas/Electricity) % 94.1% 97.6% 95.0% 97.2%
N 34 247 281 281
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100%
Value 1.288 157.0423
Mean 0.9412 0.9757 0.9502 0.9715
Z -1.133 -2.4494
Sources of Toilet Facilities
Environmentally Unsafe (0) (Tradition Open N 2 6 8 8
Toilet) % 5.9 2.4 2.8 2.8
Environmentally Safe (1) (Flash / Cement N 32 241 273 273
Toilet) % 94.1 97.6 97.2 97.2
N 34 247 281 281
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100%
Value 1.4181
Mean 0.9411 0.9797
Shapiro-Wilk test of Normality p-value 0.000 0.000 N/A
Mann-Whitney Test
M.Rank 136.26 141.65
Z -1.1882
202 ISSN 1916-971X E-ISSN 1916-9728

Table 5. Impact on Quality of Life

Before After
Mean 6.8950 7.0525
Standard Deviation 0.7688 0.7197
Shapiro-Wilk test of Normality p-value 0.000 0.000
Positive Rank: 65
Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test Z -7.0941
p-value 0.000 < 0.05

Investigating The Effect of Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia's Microcredit Program On Their Clients Quality of Life in Rural Malaysia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Investigating The Effect of Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia's Microcredit Program On Their Clients Quality of Life in Rural Malaysia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

www.ccsenet.org/ijef International Journal of Economics and Finance Vol. 4, No.

Investigating the Effect of Amanah Ikhtiar Malaysia’s Microcredit

Sazali Abdul Wahab

Received: July 8, 2011 Accepted: August 1, 2011 Published: January 1, 2012

192 ISSN 1916-971X E-ISSN 1916-9728

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 193

194 ISSN 1916-971X E-ISSN 1916-9728

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 195

196 ISSN 1916-971X E-ISSN 1916-9728

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 197

198 ISSN 1916-971X E-ISSN 1916-9728

Table 1. Size of the House and Number of Storey

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 199

Table 2. Number of Rooms and Structural Condition of the House

200 ISSN 1916-971X E-ISSN 1916-9728

Table 3. Materials Used in the Walls, Floor and Roof

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 201

Table 4. Sources of Drinking Water, Cooking Fuel and Toilet Facilities

202 ISSN 1916-971X E-ISSN 1916-9728

Table 5. Impact on Quality of Life

Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 203

You might also like